He no longer has the ability to hand it over to anyone. He's sold off the Lion's share of F1 already and only manages it for a salary. Their end game is to go public and cash out. At that point I suspect that we'll see that the business model is unsustainable and, for better or worse, F1 will cease to exist.
True that then don´t use to change the rules during the season (they do it sometimes however, like the questionable ban of the mass damper of Renault or the flexible floor of the Ferrari, that both were already using the year before without problems, or that weird British GP two years ago, when the blown diffussers were limited just for that race). Also as you said, the technical clarifications are a BIG grey area. Yet, they often change the rules with the only purpouse of leveling the field. There is the tyre rule change when the Bridgestones were too good, and then another change when the Bridgestones were too bad, the definitve ban of the blown diffuser because the Red Bulls won too easily, etc...
My question to Bernie would be this:- Practically the whole universe realized the bribery charges against Gribkowsky would stick (well except for a few journo's now sporting copious amounts of facial egg) - are you worried about action being taken against you either in Germany or elsewhere?
Off the top of my head these two are pretty awful examples IMO 1) RB's diffuser gurney allowed, multiple taped rear wing gurneys allowed, Ferrari's rear wing gurney banned 24 hours after appearance without protest from other teams 2) exhaust blowing/extreme overrun total fiasco. Three quarters of a season, back-flip after back-flip and the FiA couldn't work out what to do, resolved only because the teams who objected and were disadvantaged capitulated to save the competition and ran the rest of the season at a massive disadvantage.
Hi guys. Thanks again for the kind comments and questions for Bernie. I will do my best to get the answers and let you know what he says (provided that it's printable!). Apologies that I can't respond to each of your points but I've not yet got the hang of this commenting interface! Marussia should be signing its own commercial agreement soon or going straight to the full Concorde. As you say, the separate agreements are not ideal for the teams. Regarding NJB13's question - I am working right now on some news about the Gribkowsky case. Given how long this has gone on for I don't think Bernie has anything to worry about and we might just find that one of the parties which was previously opposed to him has switched sides..
Please ask Bernie for his take on the next 20 years of F1 (not to be indelicate, but obviously the understanding would be that some time in the next 20, he will become ex-Bernie). I'm curious how he believes the competing powers that currently make up F1 will wind up when he is gone.
That's always such a tricky question in F1 and I think that in itself is telling. To give you an example, back in 2006 I released the book on the link below: www.sportbusiness.com/files/f1_sum_bak2.pdf It was a real doorstop as it came to a quarter of a million words and contained around 100 interviews. My colleague Caroline and I spoke to everyone from Bernie, Max and current and former drivers to the people who design the teams' windtunnels. The book had an introduction written by Bernie which was (to my knowledge) the first time that he had ever endorsed a business publication and it was also directly supported by Flavio, BMW, Shell, Hilton and Tag Heuer. In a nutshell, the top people were involved with it and there was one common question which I asked many of them: what do you think F1 wil be like in 10 years time. I will never forgot one of the interviewees (who was in an extremely high-profile position) looking like I had asked him what is the meaning of life. He looked genuinely stunned by the question, presumably because he thought that 10 years was waaaaaay too far down the line to talk about. He ended up coming out with a vague response which didn't really say anything specific. I've just checked my transcript and here is the question and response verbatim. Bear in mind that this interview was done at the end of 2005 so the interviewee's projection referred to 2015... Q: If you were to look forward in the crystal ball ten years down the line how would you see Formula One being different to what it is now? A: I think it would be the pressure to get in. I think we would have rules about how you get in and how you go out and the measure of success will be the salaries of the drivers.
Very interesting. Sounds more like the usual 'short term' outlook we've come to expect from politicians...... Did Bernie answer? Prof Sid says in his book that Bernie is *always* a few moves ahead of the game. But, AFAIK, he's never said anything of any succession plan. We know he's no dummy (understatement of the year? ), surely he's not just going to leave it to chance? Unless the Viz is correct and once he's gone the suits takes over and kill the whole thing. Cheers, Ian
That answer is strange to me... I was a huge fan of F1 in 2005, and I don't remember either it being easy to get into F1, or driver salaries not being commensurate with ability. Really curious who said it
It was said by someone who is now preoccupied with something else and who should have known better! In response to Fast_ian, I didn't ask the question to Bernie but I suspect that he would have struggled to reply just as much as the others did. The difficulty with finding someone to replace Bernie is that there is no position to fill since he is in it! As preparation for the float CVC enlisted a headhunter last year to produce a shortlist of possible successors but, as far as I know, it couldn't contact any of them. The reason for this is that Bernie has confirmed that he will stay in the job (his contract has no fixed term) so if he ends up departing in say seven or eight years, many of the people on the shortlist may no longer be around or be appropriate! Back to the subject of Ferrari, here is another page from the IPO prospectus which specifically deals with di Montezemolo's share options in F1. Interesting stuff... https://twitter.com/FormulaMoney/status/321409697351610369
Christian, A little OT but still in the vein of Ferrari favoritism... Do you recall a viewpoint expressed by Max Mosley where he stated that he has a bias towards Ferrari, but he feels that this bias cancels out the inherent bias that other teams enjoy due to them being in the UK, and F1 being so UK-centric? I don't recall who did the interview, but I am almost positive it was conducted in his office/residence in Monaco, and the question was asked after some models/collectible Ferraris were observed strewn about the premises. I tried to find the quote several times since and could never find it, but I am 100% positive it was made and reported on.
This is fascinating for many reasons. Firstly because I have a good memory but don't recall hearing this one. That said, I totally believe you because it is just the kind of thing Max would say. He is so skilled at discourse. I seem to remember him once explaining at great length why he couldn't make a certain point and of course by doing this he had to make that point in great detail! I will keep this in mind and let you know if I ever discover the source.
This thread reminds me of this scene in Casablanca. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME]Casablanca gambling? I'm shocked! - YouTube[/ame] Ferrari IS F1, until proven otherwise.
+1 Very vague bells are ringing here too. IIRC, it was said either at the very end of his reign or shortly thereafter. It was then pretty much ignored as most realized he'd lost the plot by this time....... What I don't recall was any explanation of exactly why being based in the UK garners any advantage other than the skilled workforce - I don't think there's any "inherent bias". Cheers, Ian
The folks at Silverstone might agree that there's no home field advantage when dealing with the powers that be in today's F1.
